So a Colonel would salute a chaplain first without knowing their rank?By the religious insignia on their uniforms. All chaplains are officers in the military. Pretty easy right.
So a Colonel would salute a chaplain first without knowing their rank?By the religious insignia on their uniforms. All chaplains are officers in the military. Pretty easy right.
This is definitely some of the wildest nonsense I’ve heard all month.They get saluted regardless of their rank.
Their insignia says their branch, their rank only relates to how much they get paid.
To 2 most powerful professions in the military regardless of branch of service: Medical (M.D. types) Doctors and Chaplins. And not always in that order.
The lowest (O-1) 2nd Lieutenants in these 2 branches out rank the most senior of 4 star generals.
FYI: the 3rd most powerful profession MOS (enlisted)/Branch (officer) is mechanical maintenance enlisted personnel and officers: ie aviation, wheeled and track vehicle mechanics, etc.
By the religious insignia on their uniforms. All chaplains are officers in the military. Pretty easy right.
It is up to the junior person to recognize the senior one. So if the chaplain was of a junior rank, he would salute the COL.So a Colonel would salute a chaplain first without knowing their rank?
Correct, the junior would recognize and render.It is up to the junior person to recognize the senior one. So if the chaplain was of a junior rank, he would salute the COL.
There is an Army LTC chaplain that I see at lunch a couple of times a week. He is still wearing his rank.
I understand what you are saying, their rank does matter just not to them. Those that come through AMEDD really don't seem to care about their rank. I said what I said regarding this comment below.It actually doesn't matter what their rank is.
Same as Doctors. I was at Landstuhl military hospital a couple of times this week, and I rarely saw a doctor, nurse or anyone else in uniform actually in uniform. They were all wearing scrubs. Their rank was MD, or RN not Major, or LCDR, or LT, or Captain or whatever. Enlisted folks all had some kind of rank on their scrubs. Very few officers had their ranks on.
MP's were trending for a while that their rank didn't mean anything, but there are enough of them that are dickheads with a gun, I don't think they will go to a non-rank model for Military police.
I don't think that is considered to be a thing anymore. Was something I heard in the 1970's and 1980's growing up, when I joined in the 1990's it was a question I asked, and the response was "are you EF-ing stupid?".I understand what you are saying, their rank does matter just not to them. Those that come through AMEDD really don't seem to care about their rank. I said what I said regarding this comment below.
"The lowest (O-1) 2nd Lieutenants in these 2 branches out rank the most senior of 4 star generals."
As I noted earlier, there is an underlying arrogance associated with fundamentalism where discussion or uncomfortable facts are met with the implied - I am the better Christian and uniquely gifted with truth.God is Great. I know him, and I know this to be true. All the rest doesn't really matter after that. Quit your arguing. Love The Father, and prosper. I'm no graduate in theology, but I can walk away from this thread knowing that I gave you the truth to do with what you will.
True. But it would be a rare and usually stupid one who would try it.When I was an E-6, and I had to work with Academy midshipmen. I was told they out ranked me.
My last duty station was a weapons station in S.Carolina. The CO was a Lt Col, the platoon officers were Capt- 2 of 3 were mustangs. This was 1969 and all but a few were combat vets- for some reason the morale was very low- there was a higher rate of accidental/questionable deaths (recall the race unrest) than several units in Vietnam. The Sgt Major had enough of it and held "mast" for the officers, possibly even the CO- wherein he went up one side and down the other- the final comment was that "today is going to be the low point of morale in this unit- tomorrow and each succeeding day the morale will be higher than the preceding day". His name was Sgt Maj "Ace" Kabase. At the time he was the 6th highest ranking enlisted man in the USMC.One of the items about which I insured there was clear no one had the authority to give my sergeant major an order but me.
A "political" one - sorta - missed the intended thread.
Both threads have the potential to be a train wreck.A "political" one - sorta - missed the intended thread.
With mass casualties.Both threads have the potential to be a train wreck.
Could be the same reason we dont have carrier pigeons, or mammoths or gooney birds, just a wild guess. A major climate change happened after the flood at least twice, thats why there are palm tree fossils in montana, or so Ive heard. The earth is on a continually path of degradation or upheaval. animals adapt or die.I’m not debating the fact that cataclysmic events did not occur, not in the least. I’m just asking for the biblical explanation as to why we have fossils of animals that don’t exist anymore when two of every species were saved by Noah.
I dont believe there is any time at all with God, how could there be, time is a human thing, for humans morning and evening are 1 day.a thousand years is a human measurement .This is where a great debate can be had: the relativity of time.
It is my understanding that a "day" could be the 24 hours modern humans think of, or it could be a thousand years. Time does not have the same meaning to God as is defined by humans.
I suppose you could discount belief in the entire old testament and still be a born again believer as in john 3-3. for Christ said who ever believes in the son has eternal life , john3-35. But and I mean but, Christ quoted from Genesis more than any other and Im not smart enough to explain to God why I didnt believe it, I will leave that to the educated ones, pleading ignorance should be as profound as pleading superiority of scientic knowledge based on carbon 14 and atheist fools. Pure religion is of the heart not the mind I hope we can agree on that.I think your reliance on literalism is as diminished as the language that was available. The Torah was written 3400 hundred years ago maximum and it was written in Hebrew. A little bit of the Tanakh was written in Chaldean.
The mind of an uneducated human would not be able to articulate scientific concepts even if he saw everything exactly as it was. The author's languages lacked words to describe things in a technical manner whether eons, ions, hicks-bosons, space-time, or dark matter. Add to all of that, the languages themselves are metaphorical languages from metaphorical peoples. In Hebrew when God is Angry the text literally says "God's nose is red". God doesn't have a nose in any Christian or Jewish faith structure I am aware of, so sane theologians understand a conceptual metaphor.
The Genesis account was written in a language of metaphor and allegory, it was written not as a scientific treatise, but a philosophical answer to timeless questions.
Rabbis have understood this consistently for 3400 years. The most famous Rabbi understood this 2000 years ago.
The Apostle Paul told us who is a true Jew, in Romans Chapter 2.Actually, Christians are Jewish by adoption- Christianity is an extension of Judaism.